WHY NEGOTIATIONS FAILED.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 1273, 15 July 1925, Page 7

WHY NEGOTIATIONS FAILED.

No Fusion Without Reconstruction. Door Banged, Bolted and Barred. \ Says Liberal-Labour Leader. Reformers Bound by Election Fledges. Statements to the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition placed the whole of the facts relating to Coalition before the members and showed that the negotiations were finally broken off yesterday morning, when Mr Wilford wrote to Mr Coates, repeating his opinion that the Reform party had banged, bolted and barred the door leading to the creation of a National Party.

FIRST STEPS. MR. WILFORD’S ADVANCE. [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, Inst Night. The Prime Minister occupied nearly half-an-hour in reading the full correspondence. He reminded the House of his statement, on assuming office on May 27, urging that the political hatchet be buried and the path made clear for a friendly merger. Mr. Wilford’s response (already published) yvas read then a further loiter dated July 3, from Mr. Wilford, Hollowing the first conference of the fusion delegates. In this, Mr. Wilford asked the meaning of the resolution from the Reform caucus: ‘That the question of reconstruction bo loft entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.’

“There is nothing in the resolution to require you to reconstruct either at once or at any particular time,” stated Mr. Wilford. “I feel that such was not the purpose of the resolution. My caucus has asked me, after hearing the resolution read to them, to ask you if you will send me an answer to the question our delegates asked and which, so far, is unanswered, viz: 'Are we to understand that if fusion is accomplished,. the new party will bo immediately called into being and a new Ministry constructed by you from the now party under your constitutional right as leader of the new party?’ You will. I am sure, admit it is quite impossible for us to carry any resolution to join up at some future date which is undetermined and quite indefinite. Such a course would be wrong to our supporters in the country and also to the Labour Party, which party clearly has a constitutional right to our place on the Opposition benches immediately a friendly merger takes place.” Bonnet By Pledges. The Prime Minister on July 7 replied that he could not agree to an immediate reconstruction. “As you are aware, in my public statement of May SO last, I undertook that ‘the policy which my late distinguished predecessor laid down in general and on which a large number of members w'ere elected to support, is to be maintained It is not the intention of the Government to propose any radical deviation from that policy.’ It seems to me, therefore, that the Government’s first duty is to carry out this policy. When that work is completed, with the help, X hope of your party, we should then go to the electors and ask them to return a strong and stable Government, in order to carry out a National progressive policy, which will conserve both the peace and prosperity of the Dominion. I should also add that a very complete organisation by my party has been effected through the country and candidates selected, to whom support has been promised and it would be impossible, if fusion were immediately effected, to recognise adequately these commitments anj at the same time make due allowance for members of your own party, who had thrown in their lot with our party.” “Banged, Bolted and Barred the Boor.” Mr. Wilford answered the above letter on July 9: “Your statement, that you consider the creation of a. New Zealand party at the present time is impracticable, has come as a surprise to our party, as you will remember you invited us to bury the hatchet and bring about a friendly merger. We are satisfied that by your reply you have hanged, bolted and barred the door to the creation of that National party, which we believe the country requires.” The reply of the Premier on the same date denied that the door was closed and he declared he was quite beady to discuss in further details the negotiations. Mr. Wilford ended the correspondence on July 14 by declaring that the result of the interviews with the Premier had shown no change in his position and that the door had been banged. This; he added, was the opinion of his caucus. Mr. Coates, having read the letters, remarked that he had no mandate from the electors, but held his position ns the result of his appointment by Mr. Massey’s supporters. "There is no justification for saying that the door has been banged, bolted and barred. On the contrary, the door is open for all those who believe in strong and stable Government with a progressively National policy to give helpful Support in. passing through, thq House

such legislation as is necessary in the interests of the country and when that work is completed, yvo can then go to tlie country after the dissolution of the present. Parliament, as a constitutional or National party, yvith a policy yvhich will bo announced at the proper time and yvhich will conserve both the peace and prosperity of the Dominion.” Liberal Leader’s Review.

Mr. Wilford said it would bo necessary for him to go back to May 14, the day of Mr. Massey’s funeral. On the evening of that day, a caucus of the Liberal-Labour party was held and a resolution was passed to the effect that if possible, a National parly should be created in this country between the Reform and Liberal parties, provided a common policy could be arrived at and the new party immediately established. On May 10, he met a personal friend of the Prime Minister and of himself and he asked this friend to sec whether there would be any chance of a conference being brought about with two parties on the night of May 10, The friend saw Mr. Coates the next day, and the friend,informed him that Mr. Coates was not averse to a conference on the morning of July 3. The decision of the Reform caucus, offering to negotiate, was convoyed to the speaker’s representative and on July 4, the speaker wrote to the Prime Minister, asking for a conference. The Prime Minister replied that day, .expressing surprise that ho (Mr. Wilford) was not aware that the Reform caucus had passed a resolution regarding the negotiations. Immediately Mr.- Coates’s reply came to hand, the speaker wrote to him again, informing him that he had received no word from his representative and that the Prime Minister’s letter was the first intimation ho had received that the Reform caucus had offered to confer. The newspapers of New Zealand were then lot loose on the Liberal-Labour parly, every member of which was subjected to insults that they had been traitors to the speaker. He had had to remain quiet while these attacks were being made on bis party, that they had been intriguing with the Prime Minister. Nothing of the kind over happened, but what happened was that a telegram from the Prime Minister to the speaker’s representative regarding the decision of the Reform caucus did not reach him until the night of July 5, after the speaker had written to the Prime Minister offering to negotiate. A Belayed Telegram. The speaker’s letter to the Prime Minister on July 4 was written, therefore, because ho was without any knowledge of the contents of the telegram from the Prime Minister to his representative. Mr Wilford said he wanted to clear this matter up, because all through the country, it had been suggested that members of his party had been disloyal to him, whereas they had "been as loyal and true to him as any party could be and h&d kept the confidence given them. Mr Wilford said that the Prime Minister had left out all the resolutions passed by the Reform caucus's conference opened on Juno 18 and on June 19, delegates sat from 10 o’clock in the morning until 10 o’clock at night, discussing every single point of the political policy, from electoral reform down to longdated mortgages to farmers and then the conference broke up. After the delegates had reported to their respective caucuses, another conference was arranged and the Reform delegates brought to that conference three resolutions from the Reform caucus. “And,” added Mr Wilford, “for the first time I began to doubt them. Reform Resolutions. “The resolutions wore as follow: (1) That the matter of Cabinet portfolios must be left entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. (2) That therefore the Party will not accept preferential voting. (3) That the difficulties of the situation in the electorates be put plainly before the Liberal Party and that it be asked to make suggestions for a fair and equitable solution.” Mr Wilford said these resolutions were put before the Liberal caucus, which agreed unanimously that when the new party was created and Mr Coates was Prime Minister, he alone should have the responsibility of saying who were to be the Ministers he wanted “to run the show” with him. In regard to the second resolution, the Liberal Party wanted proportional representation, or if it could not, Act that, then preferential voting.

The Liberal Party had been asked to makte suggestions in regard to- candidates and this it did when its delegates again met the Reform delegates. The latter went back to theii caucus and returned with three more resolutions which were as follow: (1) That the meeting was in favour of fusion. (2) That the question of reconstruction be left entirely in hands of the Prime Minister, and (3) That the problems relative to candidates in the Held be settled by mutual agreement. “New Party or Nothing.” “I can only say,” said Mr Wllford in conclusion, “that no one Regrets more than I do that it has not been possible to create a National Party. Every member of our party believes it should be done, but no member of our party is going to form a new party unless that party is really formed. and unless it is one new party, 11 has got to be formed as a new National reconstructed party and with a policy that can bo agreed upon, and which is a progressive one. Every member of my party has said in the conference and I have agreed to it, that we were willing, if it were possible to bring it about, to agree to the Prime Minister’s constitution of the Ministry of the new party and to have placed in his hands the power of re-appointing every man he has got, without any a one of our members receiving a place, but wo are not prepared to join that party without reconstruction —without a new party and a new Government being formed and going to the country with a new policy. lam sorry it has failed. I have honestly done my best.” Belated Regrets.

Two references were made to fusion in the evening. The Hon. A. D. McLeod remarked that Mr Wilford might have said either a little less or a little more and Mr Sykes expressed regret that the negotiations had failed, as the opinion of the people favoured it.